On 13.12.2022 0.26, Piotr Karbowski wrote: > On 12/12/2022 23.06, Sam James wrote: >> It's unusual to have discussion about a single package on the mailing >> lists. I tend to keep an eye on PAM >> bugs because I maintained pambase. >> >> Bugs are the primary method of discussing changes to packages. > > You really came strong on this one. I did explain why it went to mailing > list, that very few people would notice bug on undeclared > maintainer-needed package, unlike mailing list, assigning it to zlogene > and hoping for few people to catch it up, yet you still zealously > challenge it.
I see value in having both, this mailing list discussion AND a bug. It was indeed a great initiative to open the discussion here, since as you said the main maintainer is AWOL and pam is a critical package so this needs attention, but the fix should now be finished in a bug IMHO. Once you make the changing commit you can reference a bug and it'll show relevant history data for the reason. It's much harder and annoying trying to locate the "why was this ever changed?" from a mailing list, months or years after, when you can just find a commit and a linked bug. -- juippis
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
